CSIP-Impairments and CSIP-Benefits may aid researchers and clinicians in further understanding and developing therapy strategies for treating problematic interpersonal tendencies. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).In the present study, the author employed tools and principles from the domain of machine learning to investigate four questions related to the generalizability of statistical prediction in psychological assessment. First, to what extent do predictive methods common to psychology research and machine learning actually tend to predict new data points in new settings? Second, of what practical value is parsimony in applied prediction? Third, what is the most effective way to select model predictors when attempting to maximize generalizability? Fourth, how well do the methods considered compare with one another with respect to prediction generalizability? To address these questions, the author developed various types of predictive models on the basis of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)-2-RF scales, using multiple prediction criteria, in a calibration inpatient sample, then externally validated those models by applying them to one or two clinical samples from other settings. Model generalizability was then evaluated based on prediction accuracy in the external validation samples. Noteworthy findings from the present study include (a) statistical models generally demonstrated observable performance shrinkage across settings regardless of modeling approach, though they nevertheless tended to retain non-negligible predictive power in new settings; (b) of the modeling approaches considered, regularized (penalized) regression methods appeared to produce the most consistently robust predictions across settings; (c) parsimony appeared more likely to reduce than to enhance model generalizability; and (d) multivariate models whose predictors were selected automatically tended to perform relatively well, often producing substantially more generalizable predictions than models whose predictors were selected based on theory. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).Current standards of practice in neuropsychology advocate for including validity tests (PVTs). Abbreviating PVTs, such as the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM), may help reduce overall evaluation time while maintaining diagnostic accuracy. TOMM Trial 1 performance (T1), as well as the number of errors within the first 10 items of Trial 1 (TOMMe10), have shown initial promise as abbreviated PVTs but require additional external cross-validation. This study sought to replicate findings from other mixed, diverse, clinical samples and provide further validation of abbreviated administrations of the TOMM. Data included 120 veterans who completed the TOMM and 3 criterion PVTs during clinical evaluation. In total, performance from 68% of the sample was classified as valid (52% met criteria for cognitive impairment), and performance from 32% of the sample was invalid. Group differences, diagnostic accuracy statistics, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were analyzed for relevant TOMM indices. There were large (η?p= .45-.66), significant differences between validity groups (p less then .001) on TOMM T1 and TOMMe10, with lower TOMM T1 and higher TOMMe10 scores for participants with invalid performance. Using established cut-scores, sensitivities/specificities were TOMMe10 ?1 error .84/.66; ?2 errors .74/.93; TOMM T1 ?40 .82/.93. ROC curve analysis yielded significant areas under the curve for both TOMMe10 and T1 with respective optimal cut-scores of ?2 errors (.74 sensitivity/.93 specificity) and ?41 (.84 sensitivity/.91 specificity). TOMMe10 and T1 performances are minimally impacted by cognitive impairment. Although both evidenced robust psychometric properties, TOMM T1 continued to show greater accuracy than TOMMe10. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).OBJECTIVE The Executive Committee of the American Psychology-Law Society (Division 41 of the American Psychological Association) appointed a subcommittee to update the influential 1998 scientific review paper on guidelines for eyewitness identification procedures. METHOD This was a collaborative effort by six senior eyewitness researchers, who all participated in the writing process. Feedback from members of AP-LS and the legal communities was solicited over an 18-month period. RESULTS The results yielded nine recommendations for planning, designing, and conducting eyewitness identification procedures. Four of the recommendations were from the 1998 article and concerned the selection of lineup fillers, prelineup instructions to witnesses, the use of double-blind procedures, and collection of a confidence statement. The additional five recommendations concern the need for law enforcement to conduct a prelineup interview of the witness, the need for evidence-based suspicion before conducting an identification procedure, video-recording of the entire procedure, avoiding repeated identification attempts with the same witness and same suspect, and avoiding the use of showups when possible and improving how showups are conducted when they are necessary. CONCLUSIONS The reliability and integrity of eyewitness identification evidence is highly dependent on the procedures used by law enforcement for collecting and preserving the eyewitness evidence. These nine recommendations can advance the reliability and integrity of the evidence. https://www.selleckchem.com/products/cirtuvivint.html (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).The lead article in this issue of Law and Human Behavior is "Policy and Procedure Recommendations for the Collection and Preservation of Eyewitness Identification Evidence" by Gary Wells and colleagues (2020). This special article is an official Scientific Review Paper (SRP) of the American Psychology-Law Society (AP-LS), Division 41 of the American Psychological Association (APA). This SRP is the product of an extensive, multistep vetting process designed to ensure that it represents the best research, analysis, and recommendations the AP-LS can provide. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).